torso maps

[Harry D]

McKenzie was at best a tenuous Ripper victim, and the manner of her death was different from either Jackson or the Pinchin victim. The latter two torso cases were different as well, so there wasn't much copying going on, however we look at it.

Alice McKenzie fits the Ripper's signature & MO. She was a prostitute, her left carotid artery had been severed, her skirts were raised and her abdomen mutilated. Perhaps not to the same degree as previous victims but no two murders are alike. A copycat is unlikely.

[Fisherman]

"Then again, what you suggest encompasses a suggestion that there were two serial killers working simultaneously and in the same area, and who both eviscerated, who both took out hearts, who both took out uteri, who both took away abdominal walls in sections, who both targetted prostitutes, who both left their victims with no signs of physical torture, who both had victims who had had their rings taken away, who both cut abdomens from sternum to bow ..."

Still the same stretched points, overgeneralisations and "extras", I see. And still no mention of dismemberment, which characterised the torso victims 100% yet featured in 0% of the Ripper victims.

I could, if I wanted to, tell you that you have served up Extras Galore by inventing fivehundred alternative scenarios and presented them asa if they were all true. The near certainty that the torso man lived in Battersea and such things.

Never throw stones in glass houses, Gareth. The post was not intended gor you, but for Frank, who - albeit he has another view than me - has no problems at all when it comes to seeing my pints and to discuss them in a reasoned and just way. He will be kind of aware that both he and I know that the torso victims were dismembered, and so he will in all probability not whine about it, the way you do.

Youn could learn a lot from him. But that would of course take your focus away from throwing horse manure at me, so I don´t foresee any genuine will from your side to do that.

[Sam Flynn]

"Then again, what you suggest encompasses a suggestion that there were two serial killers working simultaneously and in the same area, and who both eviscerated, who both took out hearts, who both took out uteri, who both took away abdominal walls in sections, who both targetted prostitutes, who both left their victims with no signs of physical torture, who both had victims who had had their rings taken away, who both cut abdomens from sternum to bow ..."

Still the same stretched points, overgeneralisations and "extras", I see. And still no mention of dismemberment, which characterised the torso victims 100% yet featured in 0% of the Ripper victims.

[Fisherman]

All very true, but this doesn’t make the evidence go away that suggests that Torso Man was a patient planner and the Ripper a rather compulsive doer, 2 different states of mind. It’s as simple as that. We look at the same similarities and the same differences and the above is one of the latter. They belong to the case evidence. What doesn’t belong to the case evidence, but what you make a decisive factor, is the statistics. And that’s fine. It’s just not what I do for now.

Had every torso murder been followed by one or two Ripper murders and had the frequency of the Ripper murders been more in line with the torso murders, I would have been more inclined to let the statistics speak. And when two criminal/forensic psychologists will independently state that this particular difference doesn’t mean a thing, I will be the first to say that Torso Man and the Ripper are very likely one and the same.

So, you see, Christer, I don't let my fantasy or imagination lead my way of thinking, nor is there any irrationality to the things I suggest. Therefore, there's no need to worry about me in this respect or accuse me of such things. Maybe I don’t always word everything as clear as one could, but it’s all logical (maybe not your logic) and evidence-based.
Answer: yes. First thought: the killer(s) themselves/himself may not even have been aware of why they did what they did. Second thought: my guess would be that they may have done it for a variety of reasons. The killer's mood may have played a part, just as the time he (thought he) had and the physical appearance of his victim in the abdominal region. But, of course, I can't know when one or more of these reasons applied and when others did - if they did at all, that is. Quite similar to your own thoughts, I reckon.

The best,
Frank

First: apologies if you were offended by my post. I never intended that. The word irrational must, however, be applied to the issue on the whole, regardless of who is correct, you or me. I will try to explain!

We both have difficulties accepting the other man´s bid, reasonably because we both try to make as rational a choice as possible when we try to assess what happened.

The funny thing is that there is no rational solution. If I am correct, then we have a killer who behaved in a manner that deviates markedly from what one would expect. The sequence of events is, like you say, an unexpected one and the two series seem to give away different tempers and ability to plan.
It does not seem rational, and is not in accordance with what would be expected.
Looking on it like that, you would seem to be the rational one. And I would seem to be the irrational one.

Then again, what you suggest encompasses a suggestion that there were two serial killers working simultaneously and in the same area, and who both eviscerated, who both took out hearts, who both took out uteri, who both took away abdominal walls in sections, who both targetted prostitutes, who both left their victims with no signs of physical torture, who both had victims who had had their rings taken away, who both cut abdomens from sternum to bow ...
And suddenly, you are the irrational one and I am the rational one.

Regardless of who is right, that somebody will have put forward an argument that is not in sync with what should be logically expected. There is no logical solution to be had, going by the parameters we are aware of. So irrationality must pass, it would seem. One way or the other.

The one thing I would say speaks in favour of my stance is that we do not have all the cards on hand. And I find it a lot more likely that what we perceive as illogical in the one man killer perspective has logical and sound explanations that are hidden to us today.

The two man perspective is a lot harder to find explanations for. Not impossible, but harder.

There is also a further parameter - the one I will not divulge as of yet - that I believe cements the suggestion of a single killer. But that should be no problem to you; if I can say there is, but refuse to reveal it then you can do the exact same on your behalf!

All the best, Frank!

[Sam Flynn]

The synchronicity of the 1889 murders is an overlooked factor. In the space of three months we have Elizabeth Jackson, Alice McKenzie, and the Pinchin St torso. Then... nothing.

Did Jackson's case bring the Ripper out of retirement, or inspire a copycat? Did the Torso respond by dumping his next victim on Ripper turf? Were multiple killers working together? There was definitely something more going on here than meets the eye.

McKenzie was at best a tenuous Ripper victim, and the manner of her death was different from either Jackson or the Pinchin victim. The latter two torso cases were different as well, so there wasn't much copying going on, however we look at it.

[Harry D]

The synchronicity of the 1889 murders is an overlooked factor. In the space of three months we have Elizabeth Jackson, Alice McKenzie, and the Pinchin St torso. Then... nothing.

Did Jackson's case bring the Ripper out of retirement, or inspire a copycat? Did the Torso respond by dumping his next victim on Ripper turf? Were multiple killers working together? There was definitely something more going on here than meets the eye.

[FrankO]

What I first would like to say about that is that we do not have any security about how the torso killer DID do his thing in a private place. It could have been more or less private, it could have been more or less secluded, it could have been more or less risky - we just don´t know.

All very true, but this doesn’t make the evidence go away that suggests that Torso Man was a patient planner and the Ripper a rather compulsive doer, 2 different states of mind. It’s as simple as that. We look at the same similarities and the same differences and the above is one of the latter. They belong to the case evidence. What doesn’t belong to the case evidence, but what you make a decisive factor, is the statistics. And that’s fine. It’s just not what I do for now.

Had every torso murder been followed by one or two Ripper murders and had the frequency of the Ripper murders been more in line with the torso murders, I would have been more inclined to let the statistics speak. And when two criminal/forensic psychologists will independently state that this particular difference doesn’t mean a thing, I will be the first to say that Torso Man and the Ripper are very likely one and the same.

So, you see, Christer, I don't let my fantasy or imagination lead my way of thinking, nor is there any irrationality to the things I suggest. Therefore, there's no need to worry about me in this respect or accuse me of such things. Maybe I don’t always word everything as clear as one could, but it’s all logical (maybe not your logic) and evidence-based.

Question: You know as well as I do that the inner organs can be removed through a gash in the abdomen. Why do you think the Ripper and the torso man alike chose to cut away flaps from the abdominal wall in some cases? If the Ripper found it practical in Hanbury Street, why did he not replicate it in Mitre Square, while he returned to the practice in Millers Court? Any thoughts on that?

Answer: yes. First thought: the killer(s) themselves/himself may not even have been aware of why they did what they did. Second thought: my guess would be that they may have done it for a variety of reasons. The killer's mood may have played a part, just as the time he (thought he) had and the physical appearance of his victim in the abdominal region. But, of course, I can't know when one or more of these reasons applied and when others did - if they did at all, that is. Quite similar to your own thoughts, I reckon.

The best,
Frank

[Fisherman]

Again, I'm not talking about MO in the sense of how serial killers attack, what weapon they use, what they do to their victims, things like that, Christer. I'm talking about doing their thing in some private place versus outdoors.

Yes, I understand that. What I first would like to say about that is that we do not have any security about how the torso killer DID do his thing in a private place. It could have been more or less private, it could have been more or less secluded, it could have been more or less risky - we just don´t know. Accepting that he had access to a completely private place with total seclusion and no risk is deciding in advance what cannot be decided in advance. And just as we can imagine and suggest very large dissimilarities between the killers, suggestions can also be made where they were very, very much alike. Fantasy has no limits!

Regardless of how secluded and private the torso murder killing grounds were, my take on things is nevertheless the exact same: To find one killer who strikes in a private place at times and out in the open on other occasions would be a lot less odd than it would be to find TWO simultaneusly working eviscerators in the same general area with a flair for uteri, hearts and taking away abdominal walls.

Once again, the more odd the overlapping inclusions between the series, the less of a chance there will be for two killers. And one really could not ask for much more odd inclusions than the ones we have at hand.

Once again, there is no limit to how weird a killer and his acts may be, but the weirder they are, the smaller the chance of a double working right beside them in the same time period.

Two serial stranglers in the same time and area? Possibly, yes, but not very likely.

Two serial stranglers who take out hearts from their victims, in the same area and time? No, never.

And two serial killers who both stay uncaught, who take out hearts and uteri, who cut from ribs to pubes, who take away the abdominal wall in flaps, whose victims loose rings, who target prostitutes, who have medicos commenting on how skilled they area with the knife, who are not into physical torture, who ...

It´s not a rational thing to suggest, simple as that. There are differences, but they do not make the similarities go away!

Question: You know as well as I do that the inner organs can be removed through a gash in the abdomen. Why do you think the Ripper and the torso man alike chose to cut away flaps from the abdominal wall in some cases? If the Ripper found it practical in Hanbury Street, why did he not replicate it in Mitre Square, while he returned to the practice in Millers Court? Any thoughts on that?

[FrankO]

Before Kürten, history did not bear out one serial killer committing murders in so many distinct and different and reoccuring ways as he did. Before Gein, history did not bear out one serial killer making costumes of hides to turn female in under the moon. Before Chase, history did not bear out one serial killer who believed he needed to swop his blood for other people´s, since his own turned to sand.

The ranks of serialists will always produce inventive new disciples, Frank. When it comes to the personal perspective, this is an eternal truth - much as some will be everyday stranglers, others will add new traits to the list.

It is when we shave TWO Kürtens, TWO Geins, TWO Chases - or TWO eviscerators who take away abdominal walls in large flaps - suggested as being working similarly and in the same area that we are overstepping the boundaries of reality.

One serial killer can be just about as crazy and odd and deviant as can be imagined. But the crazier and the more odd and deviant he is, the less likely is he to have a double working right next to him in the same time period.

Again, I'm not talking about MO in the sense of how serial killers attack, what weapon they use, what they do to their victims, things like that, Christer. I'm talking about doing their thing in some private place versus outdoors.

[Varqm]

The conclusion of two killers working in concert seems to be that of criminal lawyer George Lewis, who was apparently consulted by the City police, rather than the reporter. However, this conclusion seems to be largely based on an evidently false tale by a drunken companion of "Beddowes", who claimed she had a drink with Kate two hours before she was killed, when she was actually snoozing in a police cell.

Appointment with Beddowes does/did not mean collusion.But George Lewis a wel respected lawyer.

----

[Fisherman]

Just like history doesn’t bear out one serial killer committing 2 series as separate & distinct (with regards to MO and striking frequency) as Torso Man and the Ripper.

Frank

Before Kürten, history did not bear out one serial killer committing murders in so many distinct and different and reoccuring ways as he did. Before Gein, history did not bear out one serial killer making costumes of hides to turn female in under the moon. Before Chase, history did not bear out one serial killer who believed he needed to swop his blood for other people´s, since his own turned to sand.

The ranks of serialists will always produce inventive new disciples, Frank. When it comes to the personal perspective, this is an eternal truth - much as some will be everyday stranglers, others will add new traits to the list.

It is when we shave TWO Kürtens, TWO Geins, TWO Chases - or TWO eviscerators who take away abdominal walls in large flaps - suggested as being working similarly and in the same area that we are overstepping the boundaries of reality.

One serial killer can be just about as crazy and odd and deviant as can be imagined. But the crazier and the more odd and deviant he is, the less likely is he to have a double working right next to him in the same time period.

[FrankO]

... similarily the idea of a copy cat-to the extent that one killer tries to make the wounds/crime scene look like the work of another known killer to throw off suspicion-is also non existant as far as I know.

I don’t think that, if they weren’t one & the same, Torso Man cut out the uterus in Ripper-style to throw off suspicion, simply because there wasn’t any suspicion in either of the series. I suggest he may have done it to attract more media attention to the torso murders as I'm sure he was aware of the newspaper coverage the Ripper murders got. That is in line with the placing/dumping of body parts at Whitehall, Tottenham Court Road, the Shelley garden and Pinchin Street. Or (in line with what Christer is thinking) he may have done it because he had never actually taken a victim apart in that fashion. Or perhaps a bit of both. Anyway, I'm not married to the idea that they must have influenced each other.

Its an intriguing idea, but history just dosnt bear it out.

Just like history doesn’t bear out one serial killer committing 2 series as separate & distinct (with regards to MO and striking frequency) as Torso Man and the Ripper.

now, I lean toward one man for both, but if it was two men involved, I think they were completely separate and not really following (or trying to out do) each other or as Jerry Dunlop has posited- the torsoripper was two men working together to commit the series of murders. Now that does have precedent in serial killer history.

I see absolutely no evidence to support the idea of 2 men working together, regardless of whether such a thing is borne out by history or not.

Cheers Abby,
Frank

[Fisherman]

The conclusion of two killers working in concert seems to be that of criminal lawyer George Lewis, who was apparently consulted by the City police, rather than the reporter. However, this conclusion seems to be largely based on an evidently false tale by a drunken companion of "Beddowes", who claimed she had a drink with Kate two hours before she was killed, when she was actually snoozing in a police cell.

Ooopla! So much for the bright Vidocqs of the City police...

[Joshua Rogan]

They give the reasons in the clip. See Philadelphia Times, December 3, 1888. I only posted a small portion

The conclusion of two killers working in concert seems to be that of criminal lawyer George Lewis, who was apparently consulted by the City police, rather than the reporter. However, this conclusion seems to be largely based on an evidently false tale by a drunken companion of "Beddowes", who claimed she had a drink with Kate two hours before she was killed, when she was actually snoozing in a police cell.

[Varqm]

Cleary

jerryd recently found that the man who made a confession deemed false may be related to these incidents.



Sheffield Evening Telegraph
11 October 1888

AN EXTRAORDINARY STORY

An extraordinary story is going the round of journalistic circles in connection with the mysterious discovery on the Thames Embankment. It will be remembered that the woman's remains were found on the Monday afternoon of last week. The previous evening, however, a man went to most of the daily newspaper offices, saw the respective subeditors[?] and inquired if they had heard of a woman's body being discovered on the Embankment. The man evidently expected remuneration, but, in accordance with practice, was required to call again after inquiries had been made. Reporters were despatched in hot haste to Westminster, and calls were made at all the police stations and other likely quarters, but without result, no discovery of the kind reported having been made. In less than twenty-four hours the remains of the unknown woman were found between the Embankment and Whitehall at the spot previously described. If this reported discovery was a hoax, and a strange coincidence, it is very singular indeed. Moreover, the man who called at the newspaper offices did not call a second time.

Interesting.Thanks.

--